Posted on 05/08/2010 10:51:22 AM PDT by MrZippy2k
Many Indian tribes live on federally-protected reservations. I know you’ll hate to hear this, but the SCOTUS a long time ago has determined that Indian tribes are sovereign nations within the meaning of the word. Both liberal and conservative courts have continued to up hold the rulings.
In the 14th amendment the word “subject” is used in reference to being a citizen. For example : citizens are “subjects “ of a nation. Spend 5 minutes researching the 14th and Senator Howard(chief writer ) and you would have already know this. Let me put this in a modern context:Children born in the United States AND born of Parents who owe allegiance to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. You can’t change the meaning of words in order to make it “fit” your beliefs. If this was true everyone who lived in the Gay Nineties (1890’s) would be considered homosexual. Gay meant Happy in the 1890’s, just like subjects meant citizens in the 1860’s.
See the Wong Kim Ark case. It shows you’re wrong.
“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.”
Wong Kim Ark vs U.S. Immigration ( U.S. Supreme Court) .
Ark was the child of Chinese immigrants( legal) who’s parents had not yet become U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in the U.S. The court found that the fact that his parents had immigrated ( a legal process )to the U.S. and thus shown allegiance to the U.S. that Ark was entitled to be Naturalized as a Native born citizen because of his parents immigration status. At no time did the court say that being born in the U.S. by itself was sufficient to grant citizenship. Ark was declared a Native born citizen NOT a Natural Born citizen(both parents U.S. citizens).
I dont know why youre shocked. Thats exactly how it always should have been. The tribes, which are not native, claim to be sovereign peoples. Ultimately, they accepted a truce with the US in the form of reservations where they could remain sovereign. Sovereign apart from the US, by definition then not an American citizen.
Put some teeth in that and Wisconsin becomes a seriously conservative state (well, outside of Madison, which is part of the Chicago crime machine, anyway).
Anyone here (except diplomats) is subject to our laws. HOWEVER, what is meant in this context is to what country is your parents’ ALLEGIANCE owed? That is who holds primary jurisdiction over their offspring. Therefore, that is the country whose citizenship you hold. Or rightly SHOULD hold. A foreigner who comes here and downloads a baby properly should NOT create a new American citizen.
Yet the use of the word jurisdiction throughout the Constitution does not mean "owing allegiance", and as found in Ark its use in the 14th Amendment does not mean "owing allegiance".
A foreigner who comes here and downloads a baby properly should NOT create a new American citizen.
According to Ark and all judgments since then, at the very least a baby born to a legally-present foreign mother is a US citizen. A strict reading of Ark will make it quite clear that the legality of the parents is considered in the judgment.
Anchor babies to illegal aliens are not citizens per Ark; a child born to a legally admitted tourist or immigrant is. At least, that's what the Supreme Court has ruled. If your mother is here legally, and you're born on US soil, you are a citizen.
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made Taney’s point moot. Not to mention the 14th Amendment is pretty clear:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Not any wriggle room there.
Taney’s court also promulgated the Dred Scott decision - the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all answers to that courts decisions.
The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306.
Thus the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with creating a new class of anchorbaby citizens per Justice Gray's own words. It was intended to establish the citizenship of former slaves.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
Can this be said of Barack Obama's father or the parents of anchorbabies or someone who admits on his website that he was born subject to a foreign nation's nationality act???
As I said, you might disagree, but it’s simply the way the law is. I just think it’s important to be correct on the facts for any discussion.
Your bank robbery example is correct to this extent: in both cases, the parent’s are motivated to break the law to benefit their child.
I don’t think the law says that at all, in order to be a citizen one first has to be under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, that means you have to be here legally either via a visa or some other legal document allowing you to be here such as a passport stamped upon entry into the United States of America.
No legal documentation and you are here illegally and as such your offspring are not entitled to US citizenship, Wong Kim Ark was born here legally since his parents were in this country legally under contract as hired foreign workers.
There is the difference, his parents were not illegal Immigrants, they were here legally and any decision that gives citizenship rights to the children of illegal immigrants based upon Wong Kim Ark is flawed and wrong based upon that point.
Not NOW, rather back in the 1870s when the case was decided. The law now makes even native Americans born on reservations under tribal law, citizens at birth.
The anchor-baby cannot be deported, and his presence here mitigates against the illegal parents being deported. This automatic grant of citizenship to the children of those in the country illegally is a pernicious custom and we are the only First-World country in the world that does it.
Did you know that this stupidity could be ended with an Executive Order?
Of course .06 is correct. Non-citizens visiting the US, or resident here are subject to the same codes and civil and criminal penalties that US citizens obey. Americans abroad are obliged to obey the laws of the countries in which they find themselves. But there's a larger issue.
The child of foreigners is a citizen of his parents'country, is issued a passport from that country, etc. etc. The kid isn't an American ... and that goes double if the parents are illegal border bounders from El Cacadero, the chaotic mess to our immediate south.
Many foreigners here legally take advantage of our lax, naive, and incredibly stupid customs by having their children register as American citizens, and also register them in the home country. They become Dual Citizens, just like that fellow in the public housing project at 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue, whose mother was an American, but whose Kenyan father was here on a student visa and never became a citizen.
Actually, if that teleprompter reader to whom I refer was born in Hawaii, he would be a Native Born Citizen, because of his Mother's citizenship. But he would still not be a Natural Born Citizen, as the traditional view holds that this status is only conferred by two (2) citizen parents.
And that's where the battle lines on eligibility have been drawn by Obama. He claims Hawaiian birth, and that this is good enough to qualify him as President.
“If you are born in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not an ambassador or other legally-exempted individual), then you are a citizen. There should be no argument at all about this.”
I don’t think there is an argument about this: such individuals are NATIVE-BORN citizens. If they are NATURAL BORN, then why would one of the co-author of the 14th amendment in the House said:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Very clearly, in the opinion of this 14th amendment co-author, an “anchor baby” would not qualify as natural born citizen since such an infant fails to meet the test of: “parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” There can be no dispute about this.
By logic, BHO likewise would fail the NBC test on grounds that his father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. How can you dispute this? Are you claiming that the co-author of the 14th amendment didn’t know what he was talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.